Books of Maccabees A book in the Old Testament Apocrypha

General Information
The books of the Maccabees consist of four Jewish books named after Judas Maccabeus, the hero of the first two. The books do not appear in the Jewish Bible, but 1 and 2 Maccabees are included in the Greek and Latin canon and in the Protestant Apocrypha. Books 1 and 2 provide a vivid account of Jewish resistance to the religious suppression and Hellenistic cultural penetration of the Seleucid period (175 - 135 BC).

They also contain partial records of the Hasmonean (or Maccabean) dynasty, which achieved Jewish political independence during the resistance to the Seleucids and maintained it until 63 BC. Written about 110 BC, 1 Maccabees has more historical scope and detail than the others and displays Hasmonean sympathies. Dated prior to 63 BC, 2 Maccabees epitomizes an earlier work by Jason of Cyrene and has modest historical value. A historically dubious but edifying account of the persecution of Egyptian Jews by Ptolemy IV (r. 221 - 204 BC) constitutes 3 Maccabees, which was written about 50 BC. The last book, 4 Maccabees, originally written in Greek probably about AD 25, is primarily a philosophical discussion of the primacy of reason, governed by religious laws, over passion.
BELIEVEReligiousInformationSourceweb-site

K Gottwald
BibliographyJ A Goldstein, 1 Maccabees (1976); M Hadas, The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees (1953); R H Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha (1949); D S Russell, Between the Testaments (1960); S Tedesche and S Zeitlin, The First Book of Maccabees (1950) and The Second Book of Maccabees (1954).

Mac'cabeesAdvanced Information
This word does not occur in Scripture. It was the name given to the leaders of the national party among the Jews who suffered in the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, who succeeded to the Syrian throne B.C. 175. It is supposed to have been derived from the Hebrew word (makkabah) meaning "hammer," as suggestive of the heroism and power of this Jewish family, who are, however, more properly called Asmoneans or Hasmonaeans, the origin of which is much disputed. After the expulsion of Antiochus Epiphanes from Egypt by the Romans, he gave vent to his indignation on the Jews, great numbers of whom he mercilessly put to death in Jerusalem. He oppressed them in every way, and tried to abolish altogether the Jewish worship.
Mattathias, and aged priest, then residing at Modin, a city to the west of Jerusalem, became now the courageous leader of the national party; and having fled to the mountains, rallied round him a large band of men prepared to fight and die for their country and for their religion, which was now violently suppressed. In 1 Macc. 2: 60 is recorded his dying counsels to his sons with reference to the war they were now to carry on. His son Judas, "the Maccabee," succeeded him (B.C. 166) as the leader in directing the war of independence, which was carried on with great heroism on the part of the Jews, and was terminated in the defeat of the Syrians.

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)
Books of the Mac'cabeesAdvanced Information
There were originally five books of the Maccabees. The first contains a history of the war of independence, commencing (B.C. 175) in a series of patriotic struggles against the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes, and terminating B.C. 135. It became part of the Vulgate Version of the Bible, and was thus retained among the Apocrypha. The second gives a history of the Maccabees' struggle from B.C. 176 to B.C. 161. Its object is to encourage and admonish the Jews to be faithful to the religion of their fathers. The third does not hold a place in the Apocrypha, but is read in the Greek Church. Its design is to comfort the Alexandrian Jews in their persecution. Its writer was evidently an Alexandrian Jew. The fourth was found in the Library of Lyons, but was afterwards burned. The fifth contains a history of the Jews from B.C. 184 to B.C. 86. It is a compilation made by a Jew after the destruction of Jerusalem, from ancient memoirs, to which he had access. It need scarcely be added that none of these books has any divine authority.

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

The Athanasian Creed, Quicunque

(QUICUNQUE VULT)

[Alternate readings in brackets] Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic Faith is this:That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity,
Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance [Essence].
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.
The Father uncreate [uncreated], the Son uncreate [uncreated], and the Holy Ghost uncreate [uncreated].

The Father incomprehensible [unlimited], the Son incomprehensible [unlimited], and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible [unlimited].
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles [infinites], nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible [infinite].

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty.
And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.
And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be both God and Lord,
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, There be [are] three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less than another [there is nothing before, or after: nothing greater or less];
But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must [let him] thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;

God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world;
Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting;
Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood.

Who although he be [is] God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ;
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking assumption of the Manhood into God;

One altogether, not by confusion of Substance [Essence], but by unity of Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell [Hades, spirit-world], rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God [God the Father] Almighty,

From whence [thence] he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies
And shall give account for their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully [truly and firmly], he cannot be saved.

Athanasian Creed
Latin Version
Symbolum Quicunque

Quicunque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem:
Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternam peribit.
Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur.
Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam seperantes.
Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti:
Sed Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coeterna maiestas.
Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Aeternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus.
Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus, et unus immensus.
Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens.
Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus.
Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus [est] Dominus.
Quia, sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana veritate compelimur:

Ita tres Deos aut [tres] Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur.
Pater a nullo est factus: nec creatus, nec genitus.
Filius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus.
Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens.
Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Filius, non tres Filii: unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti.
Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus:
Sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales.
Ita, ut per omnia, sicut iam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit.

Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat.
Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Iesu Christi fideliter credat.
Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus [pariter] et homo est.
Deus [est] ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus: et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus.

Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens.
Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem.
Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus.
Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum.
Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae.
Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo: ita Deus et homo unus est Christus.
Qui passus est pro salute nostra: descendit ad inferos: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis.
Ascendit ad [in] caelos, sedet ad dexteram [Dei] Patris [omnipotentis].
Inde venturus [est] judicare vivos et mortuos.
Ad cujus adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis;
Et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem.

Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum.
Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit.

The Athanasian Creed, Quicunque
Advanced Information The Athanasian Creed is one of the three ecumenical creeds widely used in Western Christendom as a profession of the orthodox faith. It is also referred to as the Symbolum Quicunque because the first words of the Latin text read, Quicunque vult salvus esse...("Whoever wishes to be saved...").

According to tradition Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in the fourth century, was the author of the creed. The oldest known instance of the use of this name is in the first canon of the Synod of Autun, ca. 670, where it is called the "faith" of St. Athanasius. Although doubts concerning the Athanasian authorship had been expressed in the sixteenth century, Gerhard Voss, a Dutch humanist, demonstrated the impossibility of reconciling the facts known about the creed with the age of Athanasius. He published his findings in 1642. Subsequent scholarship, both Catholic and Protestant, has confirmed the verdict of Voss. Among other factors the Athanasian Creed is clearly a Latin symbol, whereas Athanasius himself wrote in Greek. Moreover, it omits all the theological terms dear to Athanasius such as homoousion, but it includes the filioque popular in the West.

There have been many suggestions as to the identity of the actual author. One of the more widely held theories is that the date of the creed was ca. 500, the place of composition a south Gaul location influenced by theologians of Lerins, and the special theological issues both Arianism and Nestorianism. These conclusions disqualify Ambrose of Milan even though several eminent scholars point to him as author. Caesarius of Arles perhaps comes closest to the above specifications. However, the question of authorship and origin remains open. The earliest copy of the text of the creed occurs in a sermon of Caesarius early in the sixth century. Other manuscripts containing the creed have been dated in the latter part of the seventh and eighth centuries. In these earliest mentions it appears that its functions were both liturgical and catechetical.

The creed was counted as one of the three classic creeds of Christianity by the time of the Reformation. Both Lutheran and Reformed confessional statements recognize the authoritative character of the Quicunque (with the exception of the Westminster Confession, which accords it no formal recognition). However, the contemporary liturgical use of the creed is largely confined to the Roman and Anglican communions.

Structurally the creed is composed of forty carefully modeled clauses or verses, each containing a distinct proposition. These clauses are divided into two clearly demarcated sections. The first centers on the doctrine of God as Trinity. The precise formulation of the doctrine is designed on the one hand to exclude unorthodox viewpoints, and on the other hand to express the insights explicit in the church under the influence of Augustine's teaching. Consequently this part of the creed expresses what the church felt to be the necessary understanding of God, the holy Trinity, calling it the fides catholica. The paradox of the unity and the Trinity of God is affirmed in the face of modalism, which attempted to solve the paradox by insisting on the unity while reducing the Trinity to mere successive appearances, and the Arians, who tried to resolve the difficulty by rejecting a unity of essence by dividing the divine substance.

The second section of the Athanasian Creed expresses the church's faith in the incarnation by affirming the doctrinal conclusions reached in controversies regarding the divinity and the humanity of Jesus. The creed does not hesitate again to affirm a doctrine which in human experience is paradoxical, that in the incarnation there was a union of two distinctly different natures, the divine and the human, each complete in itself, without either losing its identity. Yet the result of this union is a single person. The creed thus repudiates the teachings that Christ had but one nature (Sabellianism), or that the human nature was incomplete (Apollinarianism), or that the divine nature was inferior to that of the Father (Arianism), or that in the union of the two natures the identity of one was lost so that the result was simply one nature (Eutychianism).
It has been said that no other official statement of the early church sets forth, so incisively and with such clarity, the profound theology that is implicit in the basic scriptural affirmation that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." The somewhat technical case of its phraseology notwithstanding, the concern of the Athanasian Creed is to assert a conception of the Triune God which is free from anthropomorphic polytheism and a conception of the incarnation which holds in tension the vital data concerning Christ's humanity and divinity. It is this doctrinal perspective which lends significance to the clauses at the beginning and end of the two parts of the creed ("whoever wishes to be saved must think thus" about the Trinity and the incarnation). They do not mean that a believer must understand all theological details to be saved or that he must memorize the language of the creed. What is intended is the fact that the Christian faith is distinctly Christocentric, trusting in Christ as Savior. The church knows no other way of salvation and therefore must reject all teachings which deny his true deity or his real incarnation.

The creed does not specify the authority, either the Bible or church, upon which it makes its affirmations. However, it is a scriptural creed because it uses the ideas and sometimes the words of Scripture. It is a church creed because it is a consensus within the Christian fellowship. The Athanasian Creed remains a superb compendium of Trinitarian and Christological theology and offers itself as a ready outline for catechetical purposes in keeping with its original intent.
J F Johnson(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
BibliographyJ. N. D. Kelly, The Athanasian Creed; D. Waterland, A Critical History of the Athanasian Creed; C. A. Swainson, The Nicene and Apostles' Creeds.
With kind permision: Believe

Gospel According to Luke

General Information
The Gospel According to Luke is the third book of the New Testament of the Bible. Because of its similarities to the Gospels According to Mark and Matthew, it is classified with them as the synoptic Gospels. Although the Gospel was traditionally ascribed to Luke, a companion of Paul (Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11), most modern scholars think that it was written between AD 80 and 90 by a Gentile Christian who wrote the Acts of the Apostles as a sequel. The Gospel characteristically teaches a message of universal salvation addressed to all people, not only to the Jews.

Luke's Gospel can be divided into five major sections: a prologue (1:1 - 4); infancy narrative (1:5 - 2:52); ministry in Galilee (3:1 - 9:50); journey to Jerusalem (9:51 - 21:38); and the passion and resurrection (22:1 - 24:53). The conclusion sets the scene for the spread of the Christian word, as recounted in the Acts.

In common with the other Gospels, Luke relates the principal events of Christ's public life. Passages peculiar to Luke include the parable of the good Samaritan (10:25 - 37), the prodigal son (15:11 - 32), and Christ's words to the women of Jerusalem and to the good thief (23:27 - 31, 43). Commentators point out the prominence given to women. Examples include the story of Elizabeth (1:5 - 66), Mary's part in the infancy narrative (1:5 - 2:52), and the widow of Naim (7:11 - 17). Luke also contains three hymns that have become an important part of liturgy: the Magnificat (1:46 - 55), the Benedictus (1:68 - 79), and the Nunc Dimittis (2:29 - 32).
Anthony J Saldarini BibliographyG B Caird, The Gospel of St. Luke (1963); F Danker, Jesus and the New Age According to St. Luke (1972); J M Dawsey, The Lukan Voice (1986); F Evans, Saint Luke (1990).
Gospel According to Luke
Brief Outline
Jesus' thirty years of private life (1-4:13)
Galilean Ministry of Jesus (4:14-9:50)
Journey from Galilee to Jerusalem (9:51-19:44)
Last days of Jesus in Jerusalem, His Crucifixion and Burial (19:45-23:56)
Resurrections and appearances of the Risen Lord and His Ascension (24:1-53)

Luke
Advanced Information Luke, the evangelist, was a Gentile. The date and circumstances of his conversion are unknown. According to his own statement (Luke 1:2), he was not an "eye-witness and minister of the word from the beginning." It is probable that he was a physician in Troas, and was there converted by Paul, to whom he attached himself. He accompanied him to Philippi, but did not there share his imprisonment, nor did he accompany him further after his release in his missionary journey at this time (Acts 17:1). On Paul's third visit to Philippi (20:5, 6) we again meet with Luke, who probably had spent all the intervening time in that city, a period of seven or eight years. From this time Luke was Paul's constant companion during his journey to Jerusalem (20:6-21:18). He again disappears from view during Paul's imprisonment at Jerusalem and Caesarea, and only reappears when Paul sets out for Rome (27: 1), whither he accompanies him (28:2, 12-16), and where he remains with him till the close of his first imprisonment (Philemon 24; Col. 4:14).
The last notice of the "beloved physician" is in 2 Tim. 4:11. There are many passages in Paul's epistles, as well as in the writings of Luke, which show the extent and accuracy of his medical knowledge.

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

Gospel according to Luke
Advanced Information The Gospel according to Luke was written by Luke. He does not claim to have been an eye-witness of our Lord's ministry, but to have gone to the best sources of information within his reach, and to have written an orderly narrative of the facts (Luke 1:1-4). The authors of the first three Gospels, the synoptics, wrote independently of each other. Each wrote his independent narrative under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Each writer has some things, both in matter and style, peculiar to himself, yet all the three have much in common.
Luke's Gospel has been called "the Gospel of the nations, full of mercy and hope, assured to the world by the love of a suffering Saviour;" "the Gospel of the saintly life;" "the Gospel for the Greeks; the Gospel of the future; the Gospel of progressive Christianity, of the universality and gratuitousness of the gospel; the historic Gospel; the Gospel of Jesus as the good Physician and the Saviour of mankind;" the "Gospel of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man;" "the Gospel of womanhood;" "the Gospel of the outcast, of the Samaritan, the publican, the harlot, and the prodigal;" "the Gospel of tolerance." The main characteristic of this Gospel, as Farrar (Cambridge Bible, Luke, Introd.) remarks, is fitly expressed in the motto, "Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil" (Acts 10:38; comp. Luke 4: 18). Luke wrote for the "Hellenic world." This Gospel is indeed "rich and precious." "Out of a total of 1151 verses, Luke has 389 in common with Matthew and Mark, 176 in common with Matthew alone, 41 in common with Mark alone, leaving 544 peculiar to himself.

In many instances all three use identical language." (See Matthew; Mark) There are seventeen of our Lord's parables peculiar to this Gospel. (See List of Parables in Appendix.) Luke also records seven of our Lord's miracles which are omitted by Matthew and Mark. (See List of Miracles in Appendix.) The synoptical Gospels are related to each other after the following scheme. If the contents of each Gospel be represented by 100, then when compared this result is obtained: Mark has 7 peculiarities, 93 coincidences. Matthew 42 peculiarities, 58 coincidences. Luke 59 peculiarities, 41 coincidences. That is, thirteen-fourteenths of Mark, four-sevenths of Matthew, and two-fifths of Luke are taken up in describing the same things in very similar language. Luke's style is more finished and classical than that of Matthew and Mark.
There is less in it of the Hebrew idiom. He uses a few Latin words (Luke 12:6; 7:41; 8:30; 11:33; 19:20), but no Syriac or Hebrew words except sikera, an exciting drink of the nature of wine, but not made of grapes (from Heb. shakar, "he is intoxicated", Lev. 10:9), probably palm wine. This Gospel contains twenty-eight distinct references to the Old Testament. The date of its composition is uncertain. It must have been written before the Acts, the date of the composition of which is generally fixed at about 63 or 64 A.D. This Gospel was written, therefore, probably about 60 or 63, when Luke may have been at Caesarea in attendance on Paul, who was then a prisoner. Others have conjectured that it was written at Rome during Paul's imprisonment there. But on this point no positive certainty can be attained.

It is commonly supposed that Luke wrote under the direction, if not at the dictation of Paul. Many words and phrases are common to both; e.g. Compare Luke 4:22 with Col. 4:6. Compare Luke 4:32 with 1 Cor. 2:4. Compare Luke 6:36 with 2 Cor. 1:3. Compare Luke 6:39 with Rom. 2:19. Compare Luke 9:56 with 2 Cor. 10:8. Compare Luke 10:8 with 1 Cor. 10:27. Compare Luke 11:41 with Titus 1:15. Compare Luke 18:1 with 2 Thess. 1:11. Compare Luke 21:36 with Eph. 6:18. Compare Luke 22:19, 20 with 1 Cor. 11:23-29. Compare Luke 24:46 with Acts 17:3. Compare Luke 24:34 with 1 Cor. 15:5.

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

Luke Chapter 24
From: Home Bible Study Commentary by James M. Gray First Day of the Week
The order of our Lord's appearances on this day was given in the comment on Matthew 28, and need not be repeated. Indeed all of the events in the chapter were dealt with there, except the walk to Emmaus (vv. 13-35). Three score furlongs represent nearly eight miles (v. 13). Cleopas, one of the two on this journey is not met with elsewhere, and is to be distinguished from the "Clopas" of John 19:25. Luke has sometimes been identified as the other, but this is conjecture. The story runs on smoothly and requires little explanation; but, following Stuart, we remark on the wisdom Christ displayed in dealing with the men. He brought them to the written word, and He left them there (vv. 25-27), furnishing no fresh revelation, but expecting them to rest on the old one. What He expected of them, He still expects of His disciples, and the sooner we realize and act on it, the sooner will we have peace. Another interesting item is the reference to Simon Peter (v. 34) which no other evangelist mentions, but which Paul records later (1 Corinthians 15: 5). The reason for silence concerning it was the question of communion with His Lord that had to be settled for Peter. Could he again enjoy it after what he had done? "That visit settled it," says Stuart: "We say visit because evidently it was the Lord who sought him out."

He "hath appeared unto Simon." The effect of this interview on Peter is seen in John 21:7. Luke is very definite concerning the evidences of Christ's resurrection. "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (39). There is no mention of blood, for that is the life of the flesh (Lev. 17:14), and was poured out when He died for guilty men. Luke's version of the commission to the disciples is new, in that "repentance and remission of sins" were to "be preached in His Name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (v. 47). This is "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20 : 24), and is to be distinguished from the gospel of the Kingdom which our Lord Himself and His disciples preached throughout His earthly life.

That gospel will be preached again as we have seen (Matt. 24 : 14), but not until after the translation of the church, and Israel takes up her mission once more among the Gentiles. Power was needed for the preaching of this gospel, and it is promised (v. 49), but our Lord must first ascend ere it can be "shed forth," hence the record following (vv. 50-51). This reference to the ascension in Luke makes his Gospel the most complete outline of the four, for it begins with the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist as none of the others do, and closes with this event which Mark alone alludes to but in the briefest manner. Speaking of verse 51, the Scofield Bible says very beautifully, "the attitude of our Lord here characterizes this age as one of grace, an ascended Lord is blessing a believing people with spiritual blessings.
The Jewish, or Mosaic age was marked by temporal blessings as the reward of an obedient people (Deut. 28 : 1-15). In the Kingdom or Millennial age, spiritual and temporal blessings unite."

Questions 1. Have you reviewed the order of our Lord's appearances? 2. How was Christ's wisdom displayed on the walk to Emmaus? 3. What reason for silence is suggested in regard to our Lord's appearance to Simon? 4. Why is the mention of "blood" omitted in the testimony to Christ's bodily resurrection? 5. What is the distinction between the two "gospels" mentioned? 6. In what sense is the third Gospel the completest? 7. Distinguish among the three ages, the Jewish, Christian and Millennial.

With kind permision: Believe

Last Supper, Lord's SupperGeneral

General Information
The meal shared by Jesus Christ and his disciples on the night before he was crucified is called the Last Supper (Matt. 26:20 - 29; Mark 14:17 - 25; Luke 22:14 - 38; John 13:1 - 17:26). It was the occasion of his institution of the Eucharist, when he identified the broken bread with his body and the cup of wine with his blood of the new Covenant. The ritual was that of a Jewish religious meal, which was given new meaning for Jesus' followers when they performed it in remembrance of him. Christians differ as to the meaning of the words of Jesus, the exact relationship of the bread and wine to his body and blood, and the frequency with which the rite is to be repeated. The Last Supper was also the occasion on which Jesus washed his disciples' feet and commanded them to wash one another's feet. It has been the subject of art from earliest times. L L Mitchell

BibliographyO Cullman, Early Christian Worship (1953); G Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (1945); J Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (1955); J Kodell, The Eucharist in the New Testament (1988); L L Mitchell, The Meaning of Ritual (1977).
Last Supper, Lord's SupperGeneral Information
There are several distinct understandings of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in modern Churches.

Transubstantiation The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church follow this understanding. This involves a 'real' (physical) presence of the 'flesh' and 'blood' of Christ in the bread and wine.

According to this position, the substance, or inner reality, of the bread and wine are changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, but the accidents, or external qualities known through the senses (color, weight, taste), remain unchanged.

Catholics believe this transformation occurs at the moment of the Priest's enunciating the words. Orthodox believe that they must invoke the Holy Spirit to accomplish the transformation. Catholics believe the Mass/Eucharist/Lord's Supper has a 'sacrificial' nature, where Christ is the SAME victim in the Eucharist as He was on the Cross.

All of the Protestant views below considered Transubstantiation to be "bloody" and disgusting!
Consubstantiation The Lutheran Church follows this understanding, which holds that Christ is present along with the unchanged reality of the bread and wine.

Luther believed that the words "This is my body, this is my blood" must be interpreted literally as teaching that Christ's body and blood were present in the sacrament "in, with, and under" the elements of bread and wine. Furthermore, he viewed the sacrament as a means of grace by which the participant's faith is strengthened. This still signifies a 'physical' presence of Christ in the Supper, but not in a 'bloody' way.

Symbolic Commemoration or Memorialism Zwingli believed that Christ was present in and through the faith of the participants, but that this presence was not tied to the elements and depended completely upon the faith of the communicants. In contrast to Luther he interpreted the sacrament as a commemoration of the death of Christ, in which the church responded to grace already given, rather than a vehicle of grace.
Zwingli did not accept a 'real' presence of Christ in the Supper, and didn't see a 'real' feeding of the faithful on Him.

Spiritual Calvin believed that there is a real reception of the body and blood of Christ in the supper, only in a spiritual manner. The sacrament is a real means of grace, a channel by which Christ communicates himself to us.

Luther and Calvin agreed that communion with a present Christ who actually feeds believers with his body and blood is what makes the sacrament. The question between them was the manner in which Christ's body exists and is given to believers.
Calvin held that, while Christ is bodily in heaven, distance is overcome by the Holy Spirit, who vivifies believers with Christ's flesh. Thus the Supper is a true communion with Christ, who feeds us with his body and blood. "We must hold in regard to the mode, that it is not necessary that the essence of the flesh should descend from heaven in order to our being fed upon it, the virtue of the Spirit being sufficient to break through all impediments and surmount any distance of place.

The real difference between Luther and Calvin lay in the present existence of Christ's body. Calvin held that it is in a place, Heaven, while Luther said that it has the same omnipresence as Christ's divine nature.

Lord's SupperGeneral Information
The Lord's Supper is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ; wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to his appointment, his death is shown forth, - 1Co 11:23-26
and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporeal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace. - 1Co 10:16
What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord's Supper? It is required of them who would worthily partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body, - 1Co 11:28,29
of their faith to feed upon him, - 2Co 13:5
of their repentance, - 1Co 11:31
love, - 1Co 11:18-20
and new obedience, - 1Co 5:8

lest coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves. - 1Co 11:27-29
What is meant by the words, "until he come," which are used by the apostle Paul in reference to the Lord's Supper? They plainly teach us that our Lord Jesus Christ will come a second time; which is the joy and hope of all believers. - Ac 1:11 1Th 4:16
C Spurgeon

Lord's SupperAdvanced Information
In each of the four accounts of the Lord's Supper in the NT (Matt. 26:26 - 30; Mark 14:22 - 26; Luke 22:14 - 20; 1 Cor. 1:23 - 26) all the main features are included. The accounts of Matthew and Mark have close formal affinities. So have those of Luke and Paul. The main differences between the two groups are that Mark omits the words "This do in remembrance of me" and includes "shed for many" after the reference to the blood of the covenant. Instead of the Lord's reference to his reunion with the disciples in the fulfilled kingdom of God, common to the Synoptic Gospels, Paul has a reference to proclaiming the Lord's death "till he come."
The meaning of Jesus' action has to be seen against its OT background. Questions are legitimately raised, however, about the actual nature and timing of the meal. The accounts seem to be at variance. The Fourth Gospel says that Jesus died on the afternoon when the passover lamb was slain (John 18:28). The Synoptic accounts, however, suggest that the meal was prepared for, and eaten, as if it were part of the community celebration of the passover feast that year in Jerusalem after the slaying of the lambs in the temple.

The Synoptic accounts raise further problems. It has been thought unlikely that the arrest of Jesus, the meeting of the Sanhedrin, and the carrying of arms by the disciples could have taken place if the meal had coincided with the official passover date. Could Simon of Cyrene have been met coming apparently from work in the country, or could a linen cloth have been purchased for Jesus' body, if the feast was in progress?

To meet all such difficulties several suggestions have been made. Some have held that the meal took the form of a kiddush, a ceremony held by a family or brotherhood in preparation for the Sabbath or for a feast day. It has also been suggested that the meal could have been the solemn climax, before Jesus' death, of other significant messianic meals which he had been accustomed to share with his disciples, in which he and they looked forward to a glorious fulfillment of hope in the coming kingdom of God.

Such theories present as many new difficulties as those they claim to solve. Moreover, many of the features and details of the meal accounted for indicate that it was a passover meal. (They met at night, within the city; they reclined as they ate; the wine was red; wine was a preliminary dish.) Jesus himself was concerned to explain what he was doing in terms of the passover celebration. Scholars who regard the meal as a passover explain the attendant strange circumstances, and various theories have been produced to harmonize all the accounts. One theory is that disagreement between the Sadducees and the Pharisees led to different dates being fixed for the celebration of the feast in this year.

Another theory suggests that Jesus held an irregular passover, the illegality of which contributed to his being betrayed by Judas and arrested. (Such a theory could explain why there is no mention of a passover lamb in the account.) Attention has been drawn to the existence of an ancient calendar in which the calculations of the date of the passover were made on premises different from those made in official circles. The following of such a calendar would have fixed the date of the feast a few days earlier than that of its official celebration.

There is no doubt that Jesus' words and actions are best understood if the meal is regarded as taking place within the context of the Jewish passover. In this the people of God not only remembered, but again lived through, the events of their deliverance from Egypt under the sign of the sacrificed paschal lamb as if they themselves participated in them (see Exod. 12). In this context, giving the bread and wine as his body and blood, with the words, "this do in remembrance of me," Jesus points to himself as the true substitute for the paschal lamb and to his death as the saving event which will deliver the new Israel, represented in his disciples, from all bondage. His blood is to be henceforth the sign under which God will remember his people in himself.

In his words at the table Jesus speaks of himself not only as the paschal lamb but also as a sacrifice in accordance with other OT analogies. In the sacrificial ritual the portion of peace offering not consumed by fire and thus not offered to God as his food (cf. Lev. 3:1 - 11; Num. 28:2) was eaten by priest and people (Lev. 19:5 - 6; 1 Sam. 9:13) in an act of fellowship with the altar and the sacrifice (Exod. 24:1 - 11; Deut. 27:7; cf. Num. 25:1 - 5; 1 Cor. 10). Jesus in giving the elements thus gave to his disciples a sign of their own fellowship and participation in the event of his sacrificial death.

Moreover, Jesus included in the Last Supper the ritual not only of the paschal and sacrificial meal but also of a covenant meal. In the OT the making of a covenant was followed by a meal in which the participants had fellowship and were pledged to loyalty one to another (Gen. 26:30; 31:54; 2 Sam. 3:20). The covenant between God and Israel at Sinai was likewise followed by a meal in which the people "ate and drank and saw God." The new covenant (Jer. 31:1 - 34) between the Lord and his people was thus ratified by Jesus in a meal.

In celebrating the Supper, Jesus emphasized the messianic and eschatological significance of the passover meal. At this feast the Jews looked forward to a future deliverance which was foreshadowed in type by that from Egypt. A cup was set aside for the Messiah lest he should come that very night to bring about this deliverance and fulfill the promise of the messianic banquet (cf. Isa. 25 - 26; 65:13, etc.). It may have been this cup which Jesus took in the institution of the new rite, indicating that even now the Messiah was present to feast with his people.

After the resurrection, in their frequent celebration of the Supper (Acts 2:42 - 46; 20:7), the disciples would see the climax of the table fellowship which Jesus had had with publicans and sinners (Luke 15:2; Matt. 11:18 - 19) and of their own day - to - day meals with him. They would interpret it not only as a bare prophecy but as a real foretaste of the future messianic banquet, and as a sign of the presence of the mystery of the kingdom of God in their midst in the person of Jesus (Matt. 8:11; cf. Mark 10:35 - 36; Luke 14:15 - 24). They would see its meaning in relation to his living presence in the church, brought out fully in the Easter meals they had shared with him (Luke 24:13 - 35; John 21:1 - 14; Acts 10:41). It was a supper in the presence of the risen Lord as their host. They would see, in the messianic miracle of his feeding the multitude, his words about himself as the bread of life, a sign of his continual hidden self giving in the mystery of the Lord's Supper.

But they would not forget the sacrificial and paschal aspect of the Supper. The table fellowship they looked back on was the fellowship of the Messiah with sinners which reached its climax in his self identification with the sin of the world on Calvary. They had fellowship with the resurrected Jesus through remembrance of his death. As the Lord's Supper related them to the coming kingdom and glory of Christ, so did it also relate them to his once - for - all death.
It is against this background of thought that we should interpret the words of Jesus at the table and the NT statements about the Supper. There is a real life giving relationship of communion between the events and realities, past, present, and future, symbolized in the Supper and those who participate in it (John 6:51; 1 Cor. 10:16). This communion is so inseparable from participation in the Supper that we can speak of the bread and the wine as if they were indeed the body and blood of Christ (Mark 14:22, "This is my body"; cf. John 6:53). It is by the Holy Spirit alone (John 6:53) that the bread and wine, as they are partaken by faith, convey the realities they represent, and that the Supper gives us participation in the death and resurrection of Christ and the kingdom of God. It is by faith alone that Christ is received into the heart at the Supper (Eph. 3:17), and as faith is inseparable from the word, the Lord's Supper is nothing without the word.

Christ is Lord at his table, the risen and unseen host (John 14:19). He is not there at the disposal of the church, to be given and received automatically in the mere performance of a ritual. Yet he is there according to his promise to seeking and adoring faith. He is present also in such a way that though the careless and unbelieving cannot receive him, they nevertheless eat and drink judgment to themselves (1 Cor. 11:27).

In participating by the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ which was offered once - for - all on the cross, the members of the church are stimulated and enabled by the same Holy Spirit to offer themselves to the Father in eucharistic sacrifice, to serve one another in love within the body, and to fulfill their sacrificial function as the body of Christ in the service of the need of the whole world which God has reconciled to himself in Christ (1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:1).
There is in the Lord's Supper a constant renewal of the covenant between God and the church. The word "remembrance" (anamnesis) refers not simply to man's remembering of the Lord but also to God's remembrance of his Messiah and his covenant, and of his promise to restore the kingdom. At the Supper all this is brought before God in true intercessory prayer.

R S Wallace

BibliographyJ Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus; A J B Higgins, The Lord's Supper in the NT; G Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology; I H Marshall, Lord's Supper and Last Supper; F J Leenhardt and O Cullmann, Essays in the Lord's Supper; J J von Allmen, The Lord's Supper; M Thurian, The Eucharistic Memorial; E J F Arndt, The Font and the Table; M Marty, The Lord's Supper; E Schillebeeckx, ed., Sacramental Reconciliation.

Lord's SupperAdvanced Information
The Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:20), called also "the Lord's table" (10:21), "communion," "cup of blessing" (10:16), and "breaking of bread" (Acts 2:42). In the early Church it was called also "eucharist," or giving of thanks (comp. Matt. 26:27), and generally by the Latin Church "mass," a name derived from the formula of dismission, Ite, missa est, i.e., "Go, it is discharged." The account of the institution of this ordinance is given in Matt. 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:19, 20, and 1 Cor. 11: 24-26. It is not mentioned by John. It was designed, (1.) To commemorate the death of Christ: "This do in remembrance of me." (2.) To signify, seal, and apply to believers all the benefits of the new covenant. In this ordinance Christ ratifies his promises to his people, and they on their part solemnly consecrate themselves to him and to his entire service. (3.) To be a badge of the Christian profession. (4.) To indicate and to promote the communion of believers with Christ. (5.) To represent the mutual communion of believers with each other. The elements used to represent Christ's body and blood are bread and wine. The kind of bread, whether leavened or unleavened, is not specified. Christ used unleavened bread simply because it was at that moment on the paschal table. Wine, and no other liquid, is to be used (Matt. 26:26-29). Believers "feed" on Christ's body and blood, (1) not with the mouth in any manner, but (2) by the soul alone, and (3) by faith, which is the mouth or hand of the soul. This they do (4) by the power of the Holy Ghost. This "feeding" on Christ, however, takes place not in the Lord's Supper alone, but whenever faith in him is exercised. This is a permanent ordinance in the Church of Christ, and is to be observed "till he come" again.

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

Views of Lord's SupperAdvanced Information
The NT teaches that Christians must partake of Christ in the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:23 - 32; cf. Matt. 26:26 - 29; Luke 22:14 - 23; Mark 14:22 - 25). In a remarkable discourse Jesus said that his disciples had to feed on him if they were to have eternal life (John 6:53 - 57). The setting of that discourse was the feeding of the five thousand. Jesus used the occasion to tell the multitude that it should not be as concerned about perishable food as about the food that lasts forever, which he gives them. That food is himself, his body and his blood. Those who believe in him must eat his flesh and drink his blood, not literally, but symbolically and sacramentally, in the rite he gave the church. Through faith in him and partaking of him they would live forever, for union with him means salvation.

The setting for the institution of the Lord's Supper was the passover meal that Jesus celebrated with his disciples in remembrance of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Matt. 26:17; John 13:1; Exod. 13:1 - 10). In calling the bread and wine his body and blood, and saying, "Do this in remembrance of me," Jesus was naming himself the true lamb of the passover whose death would deliver God's people from the bondage of sin. Thus Paul writes, "Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Cor. 5:7; cf. John 1:29).

TransubstantiationThe doctrine of the Lord's Supper first occasioned discord in the church in the ninth century when Radbertus, influenced by the hankering for the mysterious and supernatural which characterized his time, taught that a miracle takes place at the words of institution in the Supper. The elements are changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Radbertus was opposed by Ratramnus, who held the Augustinian position that Christ's presence in the Supper is spiritual. The teaching and practice of the church moved in Radbertus's direction, a doctrine of transubstantiation; namely, that in the Supper the substance in the elements of bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the accidents, i.e., the appearance, taste, touch, and smell, remain the same. In the eleventh century Berengar objected to the current idea that pieces of Christ's flesh are eaten during Communion and that some of his blood is drunk.

With sensitivity he held that the whole Christ (totus Christus) is given the believer spiritually as he receives bread and wine. The elements remain unchanged but are invested with new meaning; they represent the body and blood of the Savior. This view was out of step with the times, however, and transubstantiation was declared the faith of the church in 1059, although the term itself was not used officially until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.

The medieval church continued and refined the teaching of transubstantiation, adding such subtleties as (1) concomitance, i.e., that both the body and blood of Christ are in each element; hence, when the cup is withheld from the laity the whole Christ, body and blood, is received in the bread alone; (2) consecration, i.e., the teaching that the high moment in the Eucharist is not communion with Christ but the change of the elements by their consecration into the very body and blood of Christ, an act performed by the priest alone; (3) that, inasmuch as there is the real presence of Christ in the Supper, body, blood, soul, and divinity, a sacrifice is offered to God; (4) that the sacrifice offered is propitiatory; (5) that the consecrated elements, or host, may be reserved for later use; (6) that the elements thus reserved should be venerated as the living Christ. The Council of Trent (1545 - 63) confirmed these teachings in its thirteenth and twenty second sessions, adding that the veneration given the consecrated elements is adoration (latria), the same worship that is given God.

Luther and ConsubstantiationThe Reformers agreed in their condemnation of the doctrine of transubstantiation. They held it to be a serious error that is contrary to Scripture; repugnant to reason; contrary to the testimony of our senses of sight, smell, taste, and touch; destructive of the true meaning of a sacrament; and conducive to gross superstition and idolatry. Luther's first salvo against what he considered to be a perversion of the Lord's Supper was The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.

In it he charges the church with a threefold bondage in its doctrine and practice concerning the Supper, withholding the cup from the people, transubstantiation, and the teaching that the Supper is a sacrifice offered to God. Luther tells about his earlier instruction in the theology of the sacrament and of some of his doubts:

"When I learned later what church it was that had decreed this, namely the Thomistic, that is, the Aristotelian church, I grew bolder, and after floating in a sea of doubt, I at last found rest for my conscience in the above view, namely, that it is real bread and real wine, in which Christ's real flesh and real blood are present in no other way and to no less a degree than the others assert them to be under their accidents.

I reached this conclusion because I saw that the opinions of the Thomists, whether approved by pope or by council, remain only opinions, and would not become articles of faith even if an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise (Gal. 1:8). For what is asserted without the Scriptures or proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed. But this opinion of Thomas hangs so completely in the air without support of Scripture or reason that it seems to me he knows neither his philosophy nor his logic. For Aristotle speaks of subject and accidents so very differently from St. Thomas that it seems to me this great man is to be pitied not only for attempting to draw his opinions in matters of faith from Aristotle, but also for attempting to base them upon a man whom he did not understand, thus building an unfortunate superstructure upon an unfortunate foundation." (Works, XXXVI, 29)

Luther was feeling his way into a new understanding of the sacrament at this time, but he believed it legitimate to hold that there are real bread and real wine on the altar. He rejected the Thomistic position of a change in the substance of the elements while the accidents remain, inasmuch as Aristotle, from whom the terms "substance" and "accidents" were borrowed, allowed no such separation. The "third captivity," the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, Luther declared to be "by far the most wicked of all" for in it a priest claims to offer to God the very body and blood of Christ as a repetition of the atoning sacrifice of the cross, only in an unbloody manner, whereas the true sacrament of the altar is a "promise of the forgiveness of sins made to us by God, and such a promise as has been confirmed by the death of the Son of God." Since it is a promise, access to God is not gained by works or merits by which we try to please him but by faith alone. "For where there is the Word of the promising God, there must necessarily be the faith of the accepting man."

"Who in the world is so foolish as to regard a promise received by him, or a testament given to him, as a good work, which he renders to the testator by his acceptance of it? What heir will imagine that he is doing his departed father a kindness by accepting the terms of the will and the inheritance it bequeaths to him? What godless audacity is it, therefore, when we who are to receive the testament of God come as those who would perform a good work for him! This ignorance of the testament, this captivity of so great a sacrament, are they not too sad for tears? When we ought to be grateful for benefits received, we come arrogantly to give that which we ought to take. With unheard of perversity we mock the mercy of the giver by giving as a work the thing we receive as a gift, so that the testator, instead of being a dispenser of his own goods, becomes the recipient of ours. Woe to such sacrilege!" (Works, XXXVI, 47 - 48)
In his determination to break the bondage of superstition in which the church was held, Luther wrote four more tracts against the medieval perversion of the Lord's Supper. However, he also fought doctrinal developments on the other side. Some who with him rejected Roman Catholic error were denying any real presence of Christ in the Supper; against them, beginning in 1524, Luther directed an attack. In these five writings he showed that, while he rejected transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass, he still believed that Christ is bodily present in the Lord's Supper and that his body is received by all who partake of the elements.
"On this we take our stand, and we also believe and teach that in the Supper we eat and take to ourselves Christ's body truly and physically." While he acknowledge the mystery, he was certain of the fact of Christ's real corporeal presence inasmuch as he had said when he instituted the Supper, "This is my body." If Scripture cannot be taken literally here, it cannot be believed anywhere, Luther held, and we are on the way to "the virtual denial of Christ, God, and everything." (Works, XXXVII, 29, 53)

ZwingliLuther's main opponent among the evangelicals was Ulrich Zwingli, whose reforming activity in Switzerland was as old as Luther's in Germany. While equally opposed to Rome, Zwingli had been deeply influenced by humanism with its aversion to the medieval mentality and its adulation of reason. Luther felt an attachment to the whole tradition of the church, was conservative by nature, and had a deep mystical strain and suspicion of the free use of reason.
"As the one was by disposition and discipline a schoolman who loved the Saints and the Sacraments of the Church, the other was a humanist who appreciated the thinkers of antiquity and the reason in whose name they spoke. Luther never escaped from the feelings of the monk and associations of the cloister; but Zwingli studied his New Testament with a fine sense of the sanity of its thought, the combined purity and practicability of its ideals, and the majesty of its spirit; and his ambition was to realize a religion after its model, free from the traditions and superstitions of men. It was this that made him so tolerant of Luther, and Luther so intolerant of him. The differences of character were insuperable." (H M Fairbairn, The Cambridge Modern History, II)

The chief differences between Luther and Zwingli theologically were Luther's inability to think of Christ's presence in the Supper in any other than a physical way and a heavy dualism that runs through much of Zwingli's thought. The latter is seen in Zwingli's doctrine of the Word of God as both inward and outward, the church as both visible and invisible, and his conception of the means of grace as having both an external form and an inward grace given by the Holy Spirit. No physical element can affect the soul, but only God in his sovereign grace. Thus there must be no identification of the sign with that which it signifies, but through the use of the sign one rises above the world of sense to the spiritual reality signified. By contrast, Luther held that God comes to us precisely in physical realities discerned by sense.

Zwingli interpreted the words of Jesus, "This is my body," in harmony with John 6, where Jesus spoke of eating and drinking his body and blood, especially vs. 63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail." Therefore, he reasoned, not only is transubstantiation, that somehow Christ is corporeally in, under, and with the elements. The doctrine of physical eating is absurd and repugnant to common sense. Moreover, God does not ask us to believe that which is contrary to sense experience. The word "is" in the words of institution means "signifies," or "represents," and must be interpreted figuratively, as is done in other "I am" passages in the Bible. Christ's ascension means that he took his body from earth to heaven.
Zwingli's shortcoming was his lack of appreciation for the real presence of Christ in the Supper in his Holy Spirit and a real feeding of the faithful on Him. What he needed for an adequate doctrine was Luther's belief in the reality of communion with Christ and a reception of Him in the Supper.

This was to be found in Calvin.
CalvinCalvin's view of the Lord's Supper appears to be a mediate position between the views of Luther and Zwingli, but it is in fact an independent position. Rejecting both Zwingli's "memorialism" and Luther's "monstrous notion of ubiquity" (Inst. 4.17.30), he held that there is a real reception of the body and blood of Christ in the supper, only in a spiritual manner. The sacrament is a real means of grace, a channel by which Christ communicates himself to us. With Zwingli, Calvin held that after the ascension Christ retained a real body which is located in heaven. Nothing should be taken from Christ's "heavenly glory, as happens when he is brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or bound to any earthly creatures. . . Nothing inappropriate to human nature (should) be ascribed to his body, as happens when it is said either to be infinite or to be put in a number of places at once" (Inst. 4.12.19).
With Luther, Calvin believed that the elements in the Supper are signs which exhibit the fact that Christ is truly present, and he repudiated Zwingli's belief that the elements are signs which represent what is absent. Inasmuch as the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Supper was the key issue in the eucharistic debate, it is obvious that Luther and Calvin agreed more than did Calvin and Zwingli. The latter's conception of Christ's presence was "by the contemplation of faith" but not "in essence and reality." For Luther and Calvin communion with a present Christ who actually feeds believers with his body and blood is what makes the sacrament. The question between them was the manner in which Christ's body exists and is given to believers.

In his response to this question Calvin rejected the Eutychian doctrine of the absorption of Christ's humanity by his divinity, an idea he found in some of his Lutheran opponents, and any weakening of the idea of a local presence of the flesh of Christ in heaven. While Christ is bodily in heaven, distance is overcome by the Holy Spirit, who vivifies believers with Christ's flesh. Thus the Supper is a true communion with Christ, who feeds us with his body and blood. "We must hold in regard to the mode, that it is not necessary that the essence of the flesh should descend from heaven in order to our being fed upon it, the virtue of the Spirit being sufficient to break through all impediments and surmount any distance of place.

Meanwhile, we deny not that this mode is incomprehensible to the human mind; because neither can flesh naturally be the life of the soul, nor exert its power upon us from heaven, nor without reason is the communion which makes us flesh of the flesh of Christ, and bone of his bones, called by Paul, 'A great mystery' (Eph. 5:30). Therefore, in the sacred Supper, we acknowledge a miracle which surpasses both the limits of nature and the measure of our sense, while the life of Christ is common to us, and his flesh is given us for food. But we must have done with all inventions inconsistent with the explanation lately given, such as the ubiquity of the body, the secret inclosing under the symbol of bread, and the substantial presence on earth." (Tracts, II, 577)

Calvin held that the essence of Christ's body was its power. In itself it is of little value since it "had its origin from earth, and underwent death" (Inst. 4.17.24), but the Holy Spirit, who gave Christ a body, communicates its power to us so that we receive the whole Christ in Communion. The difference from Luther here is not great, for he held that the "right hand of God" to which Christ ascended meant God's power, and that power is everywhere. The real difference between Luther and Calvin lay in the present existence of Christ's body. Calvin held that it is in a place, heaven, while Luther said that it has the same omnipresence as Christ's divine nature. Both agreed that there is deep mystery here which can be accepted though not understood. "If anyone should ask me how this (partaking of the whole Christ) takes place, I shall not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare. . . I rather experience than understand it." (Inst. 4.17.32)
SummaryWhile each of the positions declineated above sought to do justice to the Holy Supper which the Lord has given his church, and while each has in it elements of truth, Calvin's position has received widest acceptance within the universal church. Moreover, it is the position closest to the thinking of contemporary theologians within both the Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions. It is a position which sees the Lord's Supper as a rite instituted by Jesus Christ in which bread is broken and the fruit of the vine is poured out in thankful remembrance of Christ's atoning sacrifice, having become, through their reception and the sacramental blessing given by the Holy Spirit, the communion (that is, a partaking) of the body and blood of Christ and an anticipation of full future salvation.

M E Osterhaven(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
Bibliography"The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent," in Creeds of Christendom, II, ed. P Schaff; J Pelikan and H T Lehmann, eds., Luther's Works; J Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J T McNeill, and Tracts Relating to the Reformation; G W Bromiley, ed., Zwingli and Bullinger; K McDonnell, John Calvin, the Church, and the Eucharist; D Bridge and D Phypers, Communion: The Meal That Unites?

We Received the Following CommentSubj: Calvinistic Bias on the Lord's Supper
Dear Friends:
Bias is very difficult to avoid and I am sure that you have done your best. Therefore, I expect you to receive this criticism as something beneficial for your service in educating people on the Christian faith.

On the topic of the Lord's Supper, you use the word, "Consubstantiation" to identify the Lutheran teaching. Lutherans don't use this word to describe their own teaching. It is rather the Reformed who use it to describe the Lutheran position. It is a misleading word. The Lutheran doctrine cares little about whether or not the bread remains bread. We simply won't impose a Thomistic (or any other) philosophy on a biblical doctrine. I know that it is quite common for the Reformed to use this word to describe the Lutheran teaching, but this does not make it acceptable. Luther, the Lutheran Confessions, and Lutheran Orthodoxy are far more critical of the view that the Supper is not Christ's true body and blood than they are of the view that the bread and wine have changed.

Furthermore, the assertion that Lutherans today are closer to Calvin's view of the real presence than to Luther's view is simply false witness. You really ought to correct this. I am a confessional Lutheran who subscribes without any reservation to the Lutheran Confessions. Ask your contributors to read our Confessions and then to write articles on our doctrine. It is unfair to appoint a writing task to one who is ignorant of his topic. If you would like further information, you may write to me, or to any of the seminary faculties of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, or the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Any one of these seminaries would be happy to correct for the benefit of your readers the various articles that are written concering the doctrine of Lutheranism.
Thank you for your kind consideration of my criticisms!
Sincerely,

(Rev.) Rolf D. Preus, pastorRiver Heights Lutheran Church (Evangelical Lutheran Synod

With kind permision: Believe

Anabaptists, Rebaptizers

General Information

Anabaptists, or rebaptizers, were members of a variety of 16th - century religious groups that rejected infant baptism. Since they believed that only after an adult had come to faith in Christ should he or she be baptized, they taught that converts who had been baptized in infancy must be rebaptized.

Anabaptists held the church to be the congregation of true saints who should separate themselves from the sinful world. Their theology was highly eschatological, and they claimed direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit. The Anabaptists refused to take oaths, opposed capital punishment, and rejected military service. Their beliefs made them appear subversive and provoked persecution. Many of the Reformers disclaimed them, regarding them as fundamentally opposed to the ideas of the reformation.

In Zurich, Conrad Grebel performed the first adult baptism on Jan. 21, 1525, when he rebaptized Georg Blaurock in the house of Felix Manz. Anabaptism spread to southwest Germany, Austria, Moravia, along the Danube, and down the Rhine to the Netherlands. Numbering less than 1 percent of the population, the Anabaptists were for the most part of humble social origin. Among their leaders were Balthasar Hubmaier, Hans Denck, Jacob Hutter, and Hans Hut. In 1534, militant Anabaptists, inspired by radical Melchior Hofmann, seized control of the city of Munster. Led by Bernt Knipperdollinck, Jan Mathijs, and Jan Beuckelson, better known as John of Leiden (c. 1509 - 36), they drove out all Protestants and Roman Catholics. John set up a theocracy, became king, and established polygamy and communal property. After a 16 month siege, the bishop of Munster recaptured the city and executed the rebels. Menno Simons, a Dutchman, restored the reputation of the Anabaptists through his moderate and inspired leadership. His followers have survived and are known as Mennonites. The Hutterian Brethren are descendants of the group led by Hutter.

Lewis W Spitz
BibliographyC P Clasen, Anabaptism: A Social History, 1525 - 1618 (1972); W Estep, The Anabaptist Story (1975); G F Hershberger, ed., The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision (1957); F H Littell, Origins of Sectarian Protestantism (1964); G H Williams, The Radical Reformation (1962); G H Williams and A Mergal, eds., Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers (1957).

With kind permision: Believe

Amyraldianism

Advanced Information

Amyraldianism is the system of Reformed theology propounded by the French theologian Moise Amyraut and associates at the Saumur Academy in the seventeenth century. Its distinctive teachings vis-a-vis other systems (e.g., orthodox Calvinism, Arminianism, Lutheranism) focused on the doctrines of grace, predestination, and the intent of the atonement.

Fundamentally Amyraut took issue with contemporary Calvinists who shaped their system of theology around the decree of predestination. The entire body of divinity in much of seventeenth century Reformed theology was subsumed under the doctrines of sovereign election and reprobation. Amyraut insisted that the chief doctrine of Christian theology is not predestination but the faith which justifies. Commitment to justification by faith as the overarching theme denoted a theology as truly reformational. Moreover, Amyraut rightly argued that Calvin discussed predestination not under the doctrine of God but following the mediation of salvation blessings by the Holy Spirit. For Amyraut predestination is an inscrutable mystery, which offers an explanation of the fact that some accept Christ whereas others reject him.

Amyraut also developed a system of covenant theology alternative to the twofold covenant of works, covenant of grace schema propounded by much of Reformed orthodoxy. The Saumur school postulated a threefold covenant, viewed as three successive steps in God's saving program unfolded in history. First, the covenant of nature established between God and Adam involved obedience to the divine law disclosed in the natural order. Second, the covenant of law between God and Israel focused on adherence to the written law of Moses. And finally the covenant of grace established between God and all mankind requires faith in the finished work of Christ. In Amyraldianism the covenant of grace was further divided into two parts: a conditional covenant of particular grace. For actualization the former required fulfillment of the condition of faith. The latter, grounded in God's good pleasure, does not call for the condition of faith; rather it creates faith in the elect. Amyraut's covenant theology, particularly his division of the covenant of grace into a universal conditional covenant and particularly undiconditional covenant, provided the basis for the unique feature of Amyraldianism, namely, the doctrine of hypothetical universal predestination. According to Amyraut there exists a twofold will of God in predestination, a universal and conditional will, and a particular and unconditional will. Concerning the first, Amyraut taught that God wills the salvation of all people on the condition that they believe. This universal, conditional will of God is revealed dimly in nature but clearly in the gospel of Christ. Implicit in this first will is the claim that if a person does not believe, God has not, in fact, willed his or her salvation. Without the accomplishment of the condition (i.e., faith) the salvation procured by Christ is of no avail. Amyraut based his doctrine of hypothetical universal predestination on such biblical texts as Ezek. 18:23; John 3:16; and 2 Pet. 3:9.

Amyraut contended that although man possesses the natural faculties (i.e., intellect and will) by which to respond to God's universal offer of grace, he in fact suffers from moral inability due to the corrupting effects of sin upon the mind. Thus unless renewed by the Holy Spirit the sinner is unable to come to faith. Precisely at this point God's particular, unconditional will, which is hidden in the councils of the Godhead, comes to bear. Since no sinner is capable of coming to Christ on his own, God in grace wills to create faith and to save some while in justice he wills to reprobate others. Amyraut underscored the fact that God's particular, unconditional will to save is hidden and inscrutable. Finite man cannot know it. Hence the creature must not engage in vain speculation about God's secret purposes of election and reprobation. In practice the Christian preacher must not ask the question whether a given individual is elect or reprobate.
Rather he must preach Christ as the Savior of the world and call for faith in his sufficient work. Only the universal, conditional will of God is the legitimate object of religious contemplation. Amyraldianism thus involves a purely ideal universalism together with a real particularism.
The issue of the intent or extent of Christ's atonement is implicit in the foregoing discussion. Amyraldianism postulated a universalist design in the atonement and a particular application of its benefits. The salvation wrought by Christ was destined for all persons equally. Christ legitimately died for all. Nevertheless only the elect actually come into the enjoyment of salvation blessings. Amyraldianism thus upheld the formula: "Jesus Christ died for all men sufficiently, but only for the elect efficiently."

Amyraut believed that his teachings on the twofold will of God and twofold intent of the atonement were derived from Calvin himself. He viewed his theology as a corrective to much of seventeenth century Calvinism, which denied the universal, conditional will of God in its preoccupation with the unconditional decree. And he disputed with Arminianism, which failed to see that a person's salvation was effectively grounded in the absolute purpose of God conceived on the basis of his own sovereign pleasure. And finally Amyraldianism provided a rapprochement with Lutheranism and its interest in justification by faith and the universality of Christ's atoning work. Some later Reformed theologians such as Charles Hodge, W G T Shedd, and B B Warfield insisted that Amyraldianism was an inconsistent synthesis of Arminianism and Calvinism. Others, however, such as H Heppe, R Baxter, S Hopkins, A H Strong, and L S Chafer maintained that it represents a return to the true spirit of Holy Scripture.
B A Demarest(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

BibliographyB G Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy; R B Kuyper, For Whom Did Christ Die?; B B Warfield, The Plan of Salvation; Encylopedia of Christianity, I.

Amyraldianism
Additional Information (We received the following two texts from Dr. Alan C. Clifford, an author who has published works on Amyraldianism. These two texts are letters in response to inquiries on Amyraldianism, which we feel are enlightening.)

ANGLICANISM, AMYRAUT AND AUTHENTIC CALVINISM
The Editor, English Churchman6 June 2000
Sir, - In an otherwise valuable sermon (parts of which I thank him for), the Revd Edward J. Malcolm has supplied some highly flawed information ('The Death of Christ', The Journal, May 2000, pp. 23-8). I refer to his dubious assessment of Amyraldianism. Concerned to reaffirm John Calvin's authentic teaching in the face of ultra-orthodox 'high' Calvinism', the French Reformed theologian, Moïse Amyraut (1596-1664) also distanced himself from semi-Pelagian Arminianism. His concern was to avoid unbiblical extremism. Had his teaching been as compatible with Rome's as is suggested, the Edict of Nantes (1598) might possibly have stood. It was revoked by Louis XIV (in 1685) precisely because of the continuing incompatibilities between the Reformed churches and Rome! The internal Reformed debates over the extent of the atonement had nothing to do with it (for further information, see my book Calvinus:

Authentic Calvinism, A Clarification). As for the Huguenot refugees who settled in this country [England], those who agreed with Amyraut simply reinforced the original sixteenth-century 'Anglican Calvinism' of the Prayer Book and the Thirty-nine Articles (see Arts. 2, 15 and 31). Notwithstanding clear teaching on predestination (see Art. 17), the doctrine of limited atonement is as alien to Reformation Anglicanism as it is to the teaching of Amyraut and Calvin. In the seventeenth century, scholastic influences in Reformed theology affected this country as well as France. Thus the 'over-orthodox' distorted Calvinism of Dr John Owen and many (but not all) of the Westminster divines was rejected by Richard Baxter and others. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the balanced biblicism of Calvin, the other Reformers, Amyraut and Baxter was maintained by the Nonconformists Matthew Henry, Isaac Watts and Philip Doddridge, and the Anglicans John Newton, Charles Simeon and Bishop Ryle. While I regret Ryle's espousal of episcopacy, his authentic Calvinism is unquestionably on target! According to this view of the New Testament, while ultimately only the elect effectually partake of salvation, the universally designed and sufficient atonement of Christ makes the gospel available to the whole world. This is true Christianity and true Calvinism!

A C Clifford

ANGLICANISM, AMYRAUT AND THE ATONEMENT
The Editor, English Churchman3 July 2000
Sir, - Dr George Ella asks me, "Which Anglican reformer did not believe in limited atonement?" Apart from John Bradford who clearly did, several may be listed. Archbishop Thomas Cranmer stated that Christ 'by His own oblation...satisfied His Father for all men's sins and reconciled mankind unto His grace and favour...' Bishop John Hooper affirmed that Christ died 'for the love of us poor and miserable sinners, whose place he occupied upon the cross, as a pledge, or one that represented the person of all the sinners that ever were, be now, or shall be unto the world's end.' Bishop Nicholas Ridley declared that the sacrifice of Christ 'was, is, and shall be forever the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.' Bishop Hugh Latimer preached that 'Christ shed as much blood for Judas, as he did for Peter: Peter believed it, and therefore he was saved; Judas would not believe, and therefore he was condemned.' Even Bradford admitted that 'Christ's death is sufficient for all, but effectual for the elect only.' The Elizabethan Anglicans were no different in their understanding. Bishop John Jewel wrote that, on the cross, Christ declared "It is finished" to signify 'that the price and ransom was now full paid for the sin of all mankind.' Elsewhere, he made clear that 'The death of Christ is available for the redemption of all the world...' Richard Hooker stated an identical view when he said that Christ's 'precious and propitiatory sacrifice' was 'offered for the sins of all the world...' (Parker Society details witheld to save space).

As for Amyraut's supposed semi-Pelagian denial of the Canons of Dordt, Dr Ella is simply misinformed. The French Reformed professor specifically affirmed the teaching of Dordt at the National Synod of Alençon (1637), his orthodoxy being confirmed in his 'Defensio doctrinae J. Calvini' (1641). As for the canons themselves, they are more moderate than many realise. Indeed, the word 'limited' nowhere appears, thus making the mnemonic TULIP rather doubtful! They state that 'death of the Son of God is...abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world...many perish in unbelief [not] because of any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice of Christ...but through their own fault...the saving efficacy of the most precious death of [God's] Son...extend[s] to all the elect' (Second Canon, Arts. 3, 6, 8).

The Revd Edward Malcolm virtually concedes that Articles XV and XXXI are universalist when he admits that the compilers 'are merely quoting Scripture'. He then charges with having a 'preconception' those who take them in their natural sense! If he thinks this is an Arminian view, the Anglican Clement Barksdale objected in 1653 that 'You are mistaken when you think the doctrine of Universal Redemption Arminianism. It was the doctrine of the Church of England before Arminius was born. We learn it out of the old Church Catechism: 'I believe in Jesus Christ, who hath redeemed me and all mankind.' And the Church hath learned it out of the plain scripture, where Christ is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.' Richard Baxter surely hit the nail on the head when he wrote, 'When God saith so expressly that Christ died for all [2 Cor. 5:14-15], and tasted death for every man [Heb. 2:9], and is the ransom for all [1 Tim. 2:6], and the propitiation for the sins of the whole world [1 Jn. 2:2], it beseems every Christian rather to explain in what sense Christ died for all, than flatly to deny it.' As for Mr Malcolm's citation of Calvin's seeming support for limited atonement, his partial quotation of this isolated statement ignores the fact that the reformer is discussing the implications of the Lutheran theory of consubstantiation rather than the extent of the atonement. Numerous other statements are consistently universalist (see my 'Calvinus').

Before the Revd Peter Howe gets too excited by Carl Trueman's 'The Claims of Truth', he should know that the author - apart from resorting to the kind of triviality mentioned - misunderstands and misrepresents my case against Dr John Owen's scholastic high Calvinism (as my forthcoming reply will make clear). Dr Trueman actually admits that Owen did not rely on the sola scriptura principle in his theological polemics, a point which rightly disturbed Ewan Wilson (see his EC review, June 4, 1999). Since he disclaims any attempt to decide whether Owen is right or wrong, the title of Dr Trueman's book is a misnomer. It should be 'The Claims of Scholasticism.' Owen's Aristotelian rationalism also ruins the exegesis of John 3:16. He tampers with the text in a manner Calvin would anathematise. As for C. H. Spurgeon's sermon 'Particular Redemption', the same doubtful exegesis emerges. On the other hand, Bishop Ryle - rightly described by Spurgeon as 'the best man in the Church of England' - handled Scripture with greater integrity. Having little sympathy for Arminianism, Ryle was equally aware of the threat posed by high Calvinism. Commenting on John 1:29, he wrote that 'Christ's death is profitable to none but to the elect who believe on His name...But...I dare not say that no atonement has been made, in any sense, except for the elect...When I read that the wicked who are lost, "deny the Lord that bought them," (2 Pet. 2:1) and that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself," (2 Cor. 5:19), I dare not confine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every man.' Commenting on John 3:16 and appealing to Bishop Davenant, Calvin and others, he concludes: 'Those who confine God's love exclusively to the elect appear to me to take a narrow and contracted view of God's character and attributes....I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a system' (Expository Thoughts on John's Gospel, Vol. 1). In short, all that Christ is and did was for all mankind conditionally though for the elect effectually. Mr Howe will be pleased to know that this truly biblical Calvinism motivates Norwich Reformed Church to reach out to the people of the city every Saturday through its all-weather, all-season, city-centre evangelistic bookstall.

A C Clifford
BibliographyA C Clifford, Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology 1640-1790 - An Evaluation (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1990); A C Clifford, Calvinus: Authentic Calvinism, A Clarification (Charenton Reformed Publishing, 1996); A C Clifford, Sons of Calvin: Three Huguenot Pastors (Charenton Reformed Publishing, 1999).

With kind permision: Believe

Amorites

General Information
Frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, the Amorites were a Semitic people who flourished 2000-1600 BC. Their rule extended from ancient Canaan as far as Egypt.

Amorites
General Information Amorites were an ancient tribe of Canaanites who inhabited the country northeast of the Jordan River as far as Mount Hermon. In the 13th century BC, the Amorites defeated the Moabites, crossed the Jordan, conquered the Hittites, and overran Canaan to the sea. Their power was broken (see Joshua 9-10) by the Hebrews, under their leader Joshua, at Gibeon. The Amorite ancestry of the Hebrews is mentioned in Ezekiel 16:3.
The Amorites have been identified with the Amurru, a people who invaded Babylonia in the 21st century BC and two centuries later founded the first dynasty of Babylon.

Am'orites
Advanced Information Amorites, highlanders, or hillmen, was the name given to the descendants of one of the sons of Canaan (Gen. 14:7), called Amurra or Amurri in the Assyrian and Egyptian inscriptions. On the early Babylonian monuments all Syria, including Palestine, is known as "the land of the Amorites." The southern slopes of the mountains of Judea are called the "mount of the Amorites" (Deut. 1:7, 19, 20). They seem to have originally occupied the land stretching from the heights west of the Dead Sea (Gen. 14:7) to Hebron (13. Comp. 13:8; Deut. 3:8; 4:46-48), embracing "all Gilead and all Bashan" (Deut. 3:10), with the Jordan valley on the east of the river (4:49), the land of the "two kings of the Amorites," Sihon and Og (Deut. 31:4; Josh. 2:10; 9:10).

The five kings of the Amorites were defeated with great slaughter by Joshua (10:10). They were again defeated at the waters of Merom by Joshua, who smote them till there were none remaining (Josh. 11:8). It is mentioned as a surprising circumstance that in the days of Samuel there was peace between them and the Israelites (1 Sam. 7:14). The discrepancy supposed to exist between Deut. 1:44 and Num. 14:45 is explained by the circumstance that the terms "Amorites" and "Amalekites" are used synonymously for the "Canaanites." In the same way we explain the fact that the "Hivites" of Gen. 34:2 are the "Amorites" of 48:22. Comp. Josh. 10:6; 11:19 with 2 Sam. 21:2; also Num. 14:45 with Deut. 1:44. The Amorites were warlike mountaineers. They are represented on the Egyptian monuments with fair skins, light hair, blue eyes, aquiline noses, and pointed beards. They are supposed to have been men of great stature; their king, Og, is described by Moses as the last "of the remnant of the giants" (Deut. 3:11). Both Sihon and Og were independent kings. Only one word of the Amorite language survives, "Shenir," the name they gave to Mount Hermon (Deut. 3:9).

Easton Illustrated Dictionary.

With kind permision: Believe

Amish

General Information
The Amish church, a branch of the Mennonites, is a Protestant religious group descended from the 16th-century Anabaptists. The Amish take their name from Jacob Ammann, a Swiss Mennonite bishop who in 1693 broke away from the main body of Mennonites, feeling that they had strayed from the strict austerity of their forebears. Ammann's followers began emigrating to Pennsylvania from Switzerland and Germany about 1710, and by 1787 had established 70 congregations there. The Amish later spread to Ohio, Indiana, and Ontario in Canada. Today they still exist in all these areas (and others), numbering about 40,000.

The Old Order Amish, who form the majority, reject infant baptism, the swearing of oaths, and military service, and live apart from the rest of society in agricultural communities. They worship in private houses, and each congregation is served by a bishop, two ministers, and a deacon (all male). Avoiding modern technology and worldly amusements, they practice simple farming and handicrafts--Amish quilts are notable examples of American Folk Art--and speak a German-English dialect (Pennsylvania Dutch). The horse and buggy is their normal mode of transportation. The Conservative Amish, a smaller sect, differ from the Old Order Amish mainly in their adoption of English and Sunday schools. The Amish are known for their practice of meidung (shunning of those who have violated church law) and for their use of hooks and eyes instead of buttons. Recognizable by their sober yet picturesque appearance--the men with full beards and broad-brimmed hats, the women in bonnets and long skirts--the Amish occupy a distinctive place among traditional religious groups in the United States and Canada.
AmishGeneral Information

The Amish are a North American Protestant group of Mennonite origin. The Amish have maintained a distinctive and conservative agricultural way of life despite the influences of modern industrial society.

The name Amish is derived from Jakob Amman, a Swiss Mennonite bishop. He insisted that discipline within the church be maintained by excommunication. This entailed the avoidance, or shunning, by the faithful of those excommunicated. Conventional social relationships with the excommunicated, such as eating at the same table, buying and selling, and, in the case of a married person, marital relations, were forbidden. The Amish, subject to persecution in Europe, migrated in the 18th century to Pennsylvania, where their descendants are called Pennsylvania Dutch (the German deutsch, "German," was misunderstood as "Dutch"). They then spread into Ohio, other midwestern states, and Canada. A rural people, their skill in farming is exemplary.
The most conservative are known as Old Order Amish. They dress in a severely plain style, using hooks and eyes instead of buttons to fasten their clothes. They ride in horse-drawn buggies instead of automobiles, and the adult males wear beards. Religious services are held in homes; foot washing is practiced in connection with the Communion service; discipline is enforced by shunning; and marriage with outsiders is condemned. Other Amish groups, such as the Conservative Mennonite Conference and the Beachy Amish Mennonite Churches, are milder in discipline and less set apart from the world. All share the practice of believer's, or adult, baptism and often refuse to take part in civil affairs - to vote, serve in the military, and so forth. The Old Order Amish numbered about 80,800 in the early 1990s; the Beachy Amish about 7000.

The Amish have sometimes come into conflict with the larger society. In particular, they have resisted compulsory education requirements as a threat to their separate way of life. In the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the state sought to require the children of an Amish family to attend school until the age of 16. The parents were willing to allow them to attend through the eighth grade but argued that high school education would make them unfit to carry on the Amish tradition. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed that their right to the free exercise of their religion is protected and that the state's concern for compulsory public education must yield to that consideration

With kind permision: Believe

Amen

General Information {Aay - men'}
This Hebrew word means firm, and hence also faithful (Rev. 3:14). In Isa. 65:16, the Authorized Version has "the God of truth," which in Hebrew is "the God of Amen." It is frequently used by our Saviour to give emphasis to his words, where it is translated "verily." Sometimes, only, however, in John's Gospel, it is repeated, "Verily, verily." It is used as an epithet of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rev. 3:14). It is found singly and sometimes doubly at the end of prayers (Ps. 41:13; 72:19; 89:52), to confirm the words and invoke the fulfilment of them. It is used in token of being bound by an oath (Num. 5:22; Deut. 27:15-26; Neh. 5:13; 8:6; 1 Chr. 16:36). In the primitive churches it was common for the general audience to say "Amen" at the close of the prayer (1 Cor. 14:16). The promises of God are Amen; i.e., they are all true and sure (2 Cor. 1:20).

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

Amen
Advanced Information This Hebrew word originally was an adjective meaning "reliable, sure, true." or an adjectival verb, "it is reliable or true." The related verb 'aman meant "to support, sustain"; in the niphal stem: "prove oneself steady, reliable, loyal"; in the hiphil stem: "to regard someone as reliable, trustworthy, or truthful," and hence, "to believe." 'Amen by itself was used as a formula ("Surely!" "In very truth!") at the end of (a) a doxology, such as: "Blessed be Jehovah forever" (where the Amen signifies: "Yes indeed!" or, "May it be so in very truth!"); cf. Pss. 41:13; 72:19; 89:52; 106:48; also 1 Chr. 16:36 and Neh. 8:6, where the audience assents to and adopts their leader's praise of God; (b) a decree or expression of royal purpose, where the obedient listener indicates his hearty assent and cooperation (1 Kings 1:36; Jer. 11:5). The one who prays or asseverates or joins in the prayer or asseveration of another, by the use of "Amen," puts himself into the statement with all earnestness of faith and intensity of desire. The usage is the same in the NT. Isa. 65:16 speaks of Jehovah as the God of Amen, meaning that he speaks the truth and carries out his word. The same is implied by the Lord Christ when he calls himself "The Amen" in Rev. 3:14.

It is significant that Jesus introduces matters of importance with a solemn amen, lego hymin (Truly, I say unto you), thus affirming the truthfulness of what he is about to say. This is peculiar to Jesus in the NT and probably reflects his divine self-consciousness. He does not need to wait until after he has spoken to ratify what is said; all that he says has the mark of certain truth.

G L Archer, Jr.
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)
BibliographyH. Bietenhard, NIDNTT,I, 97ff.; H. Schlier, TDNT,I, 335ff.; H. W. Hogg, "Amen," JQR 9:1ff.; G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus.

Amen
Advanced Information Amen is transliterated from Hebrew into both Greek and English. "Its meanings may be seen in such passages as Deut. 7:9, 'the faithful (the Amen) God,' Isa. 49:7, 'Jehovah that is faithful.' 65:16, 'the God of truth,' marg., 'the God of Amen.' And if God is faithful His testimonies and precepts are "sure (amen)," Ps. 19:7; 111:7, as are also His warnings, Hos. 5:9, and promises, Isa. 33:16; 55:3. 'Amen' is used of men also, e.g., Prov. 25:13. "There are cases where the people used it to express their assent to a law and their willingness to submit to the penalty attached to the breach of it, Deut. 27:15, cf. Neh. 5:13. It is also used to express acquiescence in another's prayer, 1 Kings 1:36, where it is defined as "(let) God say so too," or in another's thanksgiving, 1 Chron. 16:36, whether by an individual, Jer. 11:5, or by the congregation, Ps. 106:48. "Thus 'Amen' said by God 'it is and shall be so,' and by men, 'so let it be.'" "Once in the NT 'Amen' is a title of Christ, Rev. 3:14, because through Him the purposes of God are established, 2 Cor. 1:20 "

The early Christian churches followed the example of Israel in associating themselves audibly with the prayers and thanksgivings offered on their behalf, 1 Cor. 14:16, where the article 'the' points to a common practice. Moreover this custom conforms to the pattern of things in the Heavens, see Rev. 5:14, etc. "The individual also said 'Amen' to express his 'let it be so' in response to the Divine 'thus it shall be,' Rev. 22:20. Frequently the speaker adds 'Amen' to his own prayers and doxologies, as is the case at Eph. 3:21, e.g. "The Lord Jesus often used 'Amen,' translated 'verily,' to introduce new revelations of the mind of God. In John's Gospel it is always repeated, 'Amen, Amen,' but not elsewhere. Luke does not use it at all, but where Matthew, 16:28, and Mark, 9:1, have 'Amen,' Luke has 'of a truth'; thus by varying the translation of what the Lord said, Luke throws light on His meaning."

(From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 26, 27.)

With kind permision: Believe